All mapping as read-only give you some benefit but, a this point, you have a
big-one if you never call flush/commit using FlushMode.Never (you can avoid
dirty checking at all).
Considerer to add cache-stuff to your mappings at run-time, in the AppB, if
you don't want to have two mappings.
2008/12/9 Tobes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi Folks
>
> We have an NHibernate application that reads and writes data (App A).
> We have a front end web site to that application that only needs to
> read the data (App B). Both share a common DLL containing the domain
> layer & services.
>
> I can obviously use DB permissions to ensure that App B cannot write
> to the database. Are there any gains to telling NHibernate that it is
> working as "read only mode" too, and if so what's the best way of
> doing this?
>
> This seems to work:
>
> var config = new Configuration().Configure();
>
> //manually make all classes readonly
> foreach (var mapping in config.ClassMappings)
> {
> mapping.IsMutable = false;
> }
>
> var factory = config.BuildSessionFactory();
>
> But I doubt it gives any benefits. I should probably go dig around the
> code base, but thought I'd check to see if anyone has any comment on
> this read-only scenario.
>
> Cheers
> >
>
--
Fabio Maulo
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nhusers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
